Functional Impairment in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the potential for different aspects of anxiety to modify the effect of impaired functioning in major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Participants (n = 1226) were psychiatric outpatients with MDD. A cross-sectional, multicentre, nationwide study was designed. The 12-item version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II was used to assess functional limitation. Anxiety was measured using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Depression severity was measured using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. RESULTS: About 43.1% of patients had a comorbid MDD and anxiety disorder. Poorer functioning correlated significantly with severity of depression (Pearson r = 0.78, P = 0.001), severity of anxiety (r = 0.65, P = 0.001), and higher anxiety trait scores (r = 0.40, P = 0.001), but not significantly with STAI-State scores (r = 0.03, P = 0.26). The overall regression model was significant and explained 66% of the functioning variability in patients with MDD, mostly attributable to depression severity. Results indicate that anxiety has a moderate impact on functioning impairment in patients with MDD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that MDD and anxiety severity appear to be associated significantly with impaired functioning in patients with MDD but explains only a moderate proportion of variance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".